(19-06-2017 12:12 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: Because it's another escalation to WW3?

And all because of so called allied rebels on the ground. The cynic in me wishes to see these allies being victorious to turn their coalition sponsored weapons and ideologically trained fighters against the US and Israel. But I guess, if the last 40 years didn't teach a lesson in not treating the enemy of my enemy as a friend, nothing will. The stupidity is obviously a genetic defect.

(19-06-2017 12:12 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: Because it's another escalation to WW3?

If the US and Russia start WW3 over a shit hole called Syria, I'm going to be pissed off

We're just doing what we've done for pretty much the past century, using a country as a proxy for our own agendas. Our giant Military Industrial Complex now has every politician in the bag, since there are military bases and/or weapons manufacturing plants in every state, and all they have to do is threaten to pull out of a state in order to gain the compliance of the congressperson in question-- the loss of so many jobs and so much state income would be catastrophic to that politician, and they know it.

We did it in Nicaragua (and much of Central America), in Vietnam, and a dozen other places. Today, we sell weapons to the Wahabist leaders of Saudi Arabia, who turn around and give them to militants (oh, sorry, "rebels") fighting against Russian-backed forces in Syria, while we bomb those same militants in other areas we are trying to influence. The only common denominator is that we are finding a way to open as many fronts as possible, in order to keep the cash flow going, and keep Americans scared of manufactured threats so we don't ask too many questions about why.

But this time, Syria is too close to Russia and too longstanding of an ally of theirs for them to let us get away with it. If Russia did not have issues with terrorism originating in some of their former Soviet vassal states, like the 'Stans, and in places like Chechnya, they would not have worked with us in Syria at all. Now that we continue to build up forces along their western European border and now start to push into their southwestern flank, they are all but forced to push back.

Don't get me wrong. I think Putin is a nightmare. His move in Crimea was shady as fuck. I am not cheerleading Russian aggression (they, too, have a long history of arms sales to shady organizations and rogue nations, just as we do) any more than our own.

But I cry as I watch my beloved country's wealthy leading us down a path to endless war-- under Bush, Obama, and the current President-- because it pads their bottom line, and I cry to see the deaths of so many innocents, caused by the weaponry we build (much of which is illegal under international law) and sell. And I think our rapacious greed is going to push us to the point that weapons of mass destruction begin to fly... and that's a wrap for humanity.

In the United States, hawks are already arguing for US nuclear missiles to be deployed to Europe to re-establish equilibrium – a move that, like in the 1980s, would likely result in widespread European public opposition. That could split NATO.

“I take this news as evidence that the US should build up its nuclear forces in Europe,” said Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican.

Edit to Add: The good news is that I'm in the dead center of Kansas City, one of the major communications, transport, and logistical hubs upon which the US military depends for its Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I) functions.

In the words of Dr. Falken, "But it's all right; I've planned ahead. We're just three miles from a primary target. A millisecond of brilliant light, and we're vaporized. Much more fortunate than the millions who will wander sightless through the smoldering aftermath. We'll be spared the horror of survival."

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

(22-06-2017 09:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: Don't get me wrong. I think Putin is a nightmare. His move in Crimea was shady as fuck. I am not cheerleading Russian aggression (they, too, have a long history of arms sales to shady organizations and rogue nations, just as we do) any more than our own.

There's no possible russian leader who could have reacted any differently to the NATO moving to their doorstep. Not if they want to keep their political head. National interests cut both ways.

As for Crimea, of course it was a shady move, but is it actually worse than the US invading a sovereign state in 2003, thereby causing a conflict that lasts for one and a half decade by now? The move to Crimea again was dictated by national interests. The fear of losing the base of the Black Sea fleet at Sewastopol. One would also be well advised to look at what happened before the Janukowytsch regime was toppled. I remember the televised apperance of a female American representative handing out food to the protestors on the Maidan. That's a slap to the face of the Russians and something that certainly didn't put them at ease over what happened in Kiew.

Again, one doesn't have to excuse it to understand it. It's a cynical game of interests and there is no good side involved.